Help me decide. 24-70L vs 24-105L

[Chris1le]

I had just decided I was going to add the 24-70L to my camera bag when Canon intrduced the 24-105L. Now I'm having a bit of a hard time deciding which one would be a better buy. I had a chance to use a 24-70L last week and was impressed with its sharpness at f2.8. Although I was longing for a little extra reach. Although no one has any hands on experience with the 24-105L, many have the 24-70L. What are the strengths and or weaknesses of the 24-70L. One of these lenses will be replacing my 28-135IS real soon. :)

[mebailey]

The only weaknesses Iam aware of for the 24-70 are claims of softness wide open and some Canon quality control issues. If you are comfortable with the sharpness at 2.8 then I suppose the only hurdle then is getting a good copy. Since not many folks have had their hands on a 24-105 issues with that lens are largely unknown yet. At this point the major question for you is if your shooting habits require you to have 2.8 or can you get by with an f4.

[MadMesh]

Anyone know what that new lens cost? the IS really makes me want one. Not to mention im still looking for a lens to fill that gap.

I was actually going to go with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for price and since it was fast... I dunno if I want an f/4 lens as my main lens in that range.. i guess if the price is right, I can always have a prime or 2 for low light emergencys.

[Chris1le]

Well, Madmesh it is not going to be a cheap alternative. Both lenses are roughly in the same $1200 area. With 24-105L being a little more spendy :confused:

[MadMesh]

Looks like ill still be sticking to the Tamron then, Im not going to spend that to get a slower lens... The Tamron has a good rep from what i understand... Its funny that the lens thats going to be on my camera 70% of the time will be a 3rd party...

Chris, hows that 100-400 doing??? I still cant decide to get a 1.4x and a 2x TC for the 70-200... Or get a 100-400...

Id loose two stops with a x2 TC, i figure it should be fine since the 100-400 isnt that fast anyways...

[dmstraton]

Seem like a nice compliment to the 100-300 you already have, so the 24-105 might be for you. I have the 24-70L and no complaints...my copy is amazing...but my next purchase will be one of the 70-200Ls because it is a complimentary to my kit and what perfect for what I need. Beyond that the only thing you need to consider (price being irrelevant) is f2.8 v. f4...either way, if this new lens is as good as the other Ls seem to be, you'll have great lens.

[condyk]

How can anyone answer the poll in any kind of meaningful way when they know nothing about the new lens other than specifications and having looked at a few images?

[MadMesh]

How can anyone answer the poll in any kind of meaningful way when they know nothing about the new lens other than specifications and having looked at a few images?

because faster is better :D

[su719]

because faster is better :D

Um wow. Is all I can say. 2.8 is only 2 stops away from F4. Canon's USM can stretch 3 stops so in that case your argument is for the wrong side. Faster is only better in this case if you want bokeh. That is not always an advantage depending on the situation.

As for which lens it is impossible to tell. The 24-70 seems to have not impressed many here and the Tamron is 1/3 the price and almost as sharp. That really is not helping Canon, if I were in Canon's shoes I would work double time to pep up the optics of this new lens to increase sales. Using that philosophy I would recommend you buy the new one.

[Ricko of Fla]

MadMesh your qustion on a 2XTC look at WWW.Luminous-landscape.com
under reviews the last line, more a review not looking good for the 2xTC
Ricko

[rklepper]

Um wow. Is all I can say. 2.8 is only 2 stops away from F4. Canon's USM can stretch 3 stops so in that case your argument is for the wrong side. Faster is only better in this case if you want bokeh. That is not always an advantage depending on the situation.

As for which lens it is impossible to tell. The 24-70 seems to have not impressed many here and the Tamron is 1/3 the price and almost as sharp. That really is not helping Canon, if I were in Canon's shoes I would work double time to pep up the optics of this new lens to increase sales. Using that philosophy I would recommend you buy the new one.

USM has nothing to do with stops, it has to do with the auto focus. I think that you might have USM (ultrasonic focusing motor) confused with IS (Image Stabilization). Also, the f stop has to do with other things, not just bokeh.

[cc10d]

MadMesh said:
"I still cant decide to get a 1.4x and a 2x TC for the 70-200... Or get a 100-400..."

The 1.4 will not be too bad. I would not bother with the 2x though. (I have both extenders) I also use my 100-400L a lot. (No extenders even though it can use them, I like auto focus) The IS is good and the images are fine. Not quite a 400 2.8 but a lot easier to handle and less money.

[pfogle]

Anyone know what that new lens cost? the IS really makes me want one. Not to mention im still looking for a lens to fill that gap.

I was actually going to go with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for price and since it was fast... I dunno if I want an f/4 lens as my main lens in that range.. i guess if the price is right, I can always have a prime or 2 for low light emergencys.

I have the Tamron, and it's definitely stopped my L-envy! It's bang on wide open at 28mm, and nearly as good at 75mm. Used it on the 20D, and now on the 1Dm2. I haven't used IS, but I'd rather have an extra stop for small DOF for portraits, and take my chances with the shake!

My next big want lenses... the 85/1.8 and upgrade the 50/1.8 to 1.4

Phil

[pfogle]

Um wow. Is all I can say. 2.8 is only 2 stops away from F4...

erm, actually it's only 1 stop, but that makes your agument even stronger :)

Phil

[tim]

I don't buy a lens slower than F2.8 unless I have no other option, I like control of the DOF and the shutter speed it offers. Other than my Tokina 12-24 F4, all my lenses are F2.8 or faster.

[su719]

USM has nothing to do with stops, it has to do with the auto focus. I think that you might have USM (ultrasonic focusing motor) confused with IS (Image Stabilization). Also, the f stop has to do with other things, not just bokeh.

Sorry bad typing got USM and IS mixed. I am curious as to what other things besides more available light and bokeh f stop affects?

[Bob_A]

Faster is only better in this case if you want bokeh.

Not true.

If you need a high shutterspeed to eliminate blur due to subject movement then IS doesn't really help, but a fast zoom does.

[grego]

I heard this 24-105 is supposed to be in the 1 grand range(I doubt it would ever sell and Canon would need to drop the price to around 800). It's reaching near the 24-70 so why wouldn't you get the faster lens?

[JasonW]

I guess the advantage with the 24-105 over the 24-70 is that it is a bit more versatile with the extra 35mm on the top end and the IS. Assuming that the optics are as good or better than the 24-70 it is going to be a tough choice. I have just bought the Tamron 28-75f2.8 to replace my 28-135IS. The main reason for the purchase was to get improved sharpness and better low light performance. Now with the 24-105F4 out I will be considering replacing my 28-75 down the road. For me the extra 1 stop advantage of the f2.8 lens is more than compensated by the longer reach and IS. I guess it will depend on the final price.....

[who me?]

Just get the 24-70L. That will leave one more 24-105 for me... :-)
I really don't care if I lack that one stop to 2.8. For me it is the verstility of the 24-105 range and how it fits in my current lenses. I plan on selling the 24-85 as it completly lacks the range I want and also, I am not a fan of the build quality. Optically it is fine but it just feels too plasticy.

[richardho11]

I would go with the 24-70, because I also love fast lenses. Plus, the only other fast quality alternative is the Canon 70-200 2.8 which already covers that range. Because when you need that extra shutter speed for moving subject, IS just can not substitue. Of course this is just my opinion and what I use the lens for.

[mjordan]

As for which lens it is impossible to tell. The 24-70 seems to have not impressed many here and the Tamron is 1/3 the price and almost as sharp. That really is not helping Canon, if I were in Canon's shoes I would work double time to pep up the optics of this new lens to increase sales. Using that philosophy I would recommend you buy the new one. I'm not sure how many aren't impressed with the 24-70 2.8L, but I know it's a fantastic lens that I use all the time. Everyone that I know that has it all swear by it for it's sharpness and crispness. I've used it for close up at it's closest focusing distance (which is pretty close) and across the fstop range, all the way out to 70mm all across it's fstop range. This is one sweat lens. Mike

[ghocking]

I have the 24-70 L and find it to heavy to carry around for longish walks. I also find that due to its weight I need to keep the speed to up to get sharpness. People have said it is better used with a 1D body, giving better balance. The 24-105 L even with IS seems to be about 2/3 the weight of 24-70 and so for me should be a good walk round/landscape lenes, so have ordered 5D and 24-105. As far as price goes I to was expecting around £1000 pounds from what I had heard over the net, but in UK firms are offering the 5D with the 24-105 (I do not know if this is a Canon offer), and baseing the 5D around £2500, makes the lens in the £600-£650 range.

[reemas]

you can't compare IS and a fast lens. two different things.

[reemas]

IS is good for low light, LOW/NO action shots. IS is good if your subjects don't move.
IS won't get you a fast shutter speed when you need it, and your blurred shot will be useless. i have a lens that has IS, and its great, but you can't compare IS vs a fast lens.

by the way, dof is also different.


EDIT: sorry for the double posting

[kawter2]

for DOF in weddings I am rarely above f4.. mostly below that.. yes you can compensate for the f4 DOF a lil by going up to 100mm but i would hat that the widest i had was f4. also in a church the IS really wont help, because it is all shutter speed/ subject blur, however the ISO on the 5d might help that a bit.

if it were 24-105 2.8 L IS I WOULD POOP MY PANTS AND GET IT ASAP

[Music to my eyes]

Also, remember that cameras like the 20D, with lenses of f2.8 (or less) allows the camera to go to high precision AF mode (or whatever it's called) - so faster more reliable AF, important if you use AI servo, or even if you have fast moving kids you want to photograph.
Most of my photography is people oriented currently, and some very fast moving small people at that. I think the faster, more accurate AF allowed by the f2.8 shouldn't be overlooked if the body you have permits this.

For me, given the cost is about the same, I'd prefer the f2.8L over the f4L IS, unless my needs change, or unless I need the versatility in a lightweight package - eg - I'd take the 24-105 L IS with a 20D with no other lenses if I was travelling light.

[Andy_T]

The only weaknesses Iam aware of for the 24-70 are claims of softness wide open and some Canon quality control issues.

I don't have a 24-70 L, but if you are unhappy with the sharpness of this lens, then the 24-105/4 L is most likely also not going to satisfy you (nor any of the Tamron, Sigma or Tokina alternatives).

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

All I can say is this;

If the 24-105mm f/4L really IS more $$$ than the 24-70mm.. then anyone would have to be odd to get the f/4...

The whole reason for an f/4 in this range would be for a lower cost alternative to the super fast f/2.8 zoom (and super expensive)

And FYI.. in this photographers humble opinion.. there is no such thing as just two stops.. it's more like "Wow.. TWO MORE STOPS!"


In the end though.. I think it would make sense to wait and see where the lens price really ends up.. the 17-40mm is nearly $200.00 less than when it was introduced these days.. IMHO.. the 24-105 needs to be priced at no mopre than $800.00-$850.00 to be competitive with it's older brother.

[ed2day]

I don't have a 24-70 L, but if you are unhappy with the sharpness of this lens, then the 24-105/4 L is most likely also not going to satisfy you (nor any of the Tamron, Sigma or Tokina alternatives).

Best regards,
Andy

I wouldn't be too quick to make that statement. I don't know what the 24-105L will be like but my 24-70 does not set a high bar for sharpness. And I think my 24-70 is pretty typical. My 28-135 beats my 24-70 for sharpness. But I think my 28-135 is exceptional. The kit lens often bests the 24-70. I put out a request to see some controlled test results displaying the 24-70's reputed sharpness. Yet to see anything. I've seen several results showing the Tamron to be sharper.

[mdenigris]

Um wow. Is all I can say. 2.8 is only 2 stops away from F4. Canon's USM can stretch 3 stops so in that case your argument is for the wrong side. Faster is only better in this case if you want bokeh.

Um...wrong. Faster is faster, and no amount of IS can stop action like a faster shutter speed can. Faster shutter speeds can also reduce hand shake.

[Sodigital]

I have been looking at the 24-70 myself, for Wedding shots and I really want the sharpness, so I think the f2.8 will give it to me more than the f4.

[Chris1le]

Okay the poll is running 50/50. There have been a lot of good arguments for both lenses. I came into this leaning towards the 24-105L but now I think I will go with the 24-70L for now. Maybe if the price comes down a bit on the 24-105L and some hands on reviews come out I will look at that lens in the future.

[Dan GSR]

My 28-135 beats my 24-70 for sharpness. But I think my 28-135 is exceptional. The kit lens often bests the 24-70.


wow, first time ive ever heard someone say this

[richardho11]

wow, first time ive ever heard someone say this

I second that! I never heard of that before! LOL.:lol:

[remo]

My Vivitar 25-71 f2.8 is tack sharp at any focal length and 8 times cheaper than Canon 24-70.

[grego]

In the end though.. I think it would make sense to wait and see where the lens price really ends up.. the 17-40mm is nearly $200.00 less than when it was introduced these days.. IMHO.. the 24-105 needs to be priced at no mopre than $800.00-$850.00 to be competitive with it's older brother.

My friend and I were discussing this. I think if Canon prices it there, it'll have few sales and the price will be forced to drop.

But then there are some people who are just odd. There was this one girl my friend told me who bought the D60 over the 10D because the number was bigger, so she thought it was better. She paid like 2 grand something for the D60. :lol:

[judyg]

My 28-135 IS is really sharp too. Unfortunately I just dropped it, and I'm hoping it comes back from Canon good as new.

This was taken recently with the 28-135, out of an open car window, basically in point & shoot mode:

http://judyg.smugmug.com/photos/32410374-M.jpg

[kawter2]

anyone in their right mind shouldnt compare the sharpness of the 28-135 to the 24-70... sorry, it might be sharper @ f8 than the 24-70 is at 2.8 (but id even doubt that) but these lenses are WORLDS APART "quality wise"

[ed2day]

Maybe that's the problem...no one compares them. I can only speak for mine.

[Sodigital]

I can't agree with you more.(Kawter2) I have the 28-135 and I really enjoy it but I am looking at the 24-70 because I want a more sharp picture.

[KurtKuhn]

All I can say is this;

If the 24-105mm f/4L really IS more $$$ than the 24-70mm.. then anyone would have to be odd to get the f/4...

The whole reason for an f/4 in this range would be for a lower cost alternative to the super fast f/2.8 zoom (and super expensive)

And FYI.. in this photographers humble opinion.. there is no such thing as just two stops.. it's more like "Wow.. TWO MORE STOPS!"


In the end though.. I think it would make sense to wait and see where the lens price really ends up.. the 17-40mm is nearly $200.00 less than when it was introduced these days.. IMHO.. the 24-105 needs to be priced at no mopre than $800.00-$850.00 to be competitive with it's older brother.

I'm on board with CDS. I think cost is the bigger issue here. 24-70 is way sharp, and I wouldn't trade it. But the 24-105 coupled with a 5D would make a great travel set up. But the price, oh the price...

-KK

[rklepper]

I had the 70-200 f4 and it was worthless in all but the brightest of light. I now have the f2.8 (both the 24-70 andthe 70-200) and I love it. The f4 was constantly hunting, even just in shade. I do not have that problem with the 24-70. Just what I know about the f4 vs the f2.8.

[SolPics]

I love the 24-70L, and if anyone also has a 70-200 L, I don't think you'd need a 24-105 L especially with an F/4. I don't get it, maybe I'm missing something.

[grego]

I love the 24-70L, and if anyone also has a 70-200 L, I don't think you'd need a 24-105 L especially with an F/4. I don't get it, maybe I'm missing something.

Because it goes to 105mm instead of 70. A sucker is born each minute, especially at the current price that Canon is using for the 25-105 for an f/4 lens.

[kolok]

I love the 24-70L, and if anyone also has a 70-200 L, I don't think you'd need a 24-105 L especially with an F/4. I don't get it, maybe I'm missing something.

Nothing really to get.

A lot depends on the need of an individual based on general conditions of use. I, for one, would much rather use/carry one lens instead of two while in the field or while traveling. For the average user the differences between the lenses at the 24-70 range are negligible. Then again, a pro can make photos with a cardboard tube that would look better than those an average user would produce with a pro lens.

All the arguments about which lens is better are quite subjective. The most important factors to consider are 1) general shooting conditions, 2) cost. It does nothing for the average photographer to carry around "x" amount of gear that cost "x" amount of money ...

[Nikolas]

You realised you revived a 2 year old thread?

[Lani Kai]

Here we go again.

[thatkatmat]

I voted for the 24-70....as you live near me in Gig Harbor and it's only sunny here like 3 days a year...But looking at your gear list I see I you picked the wrong lens...LOL
Cheers on this ancent thread.....perhaps this lens was brought back as the "original" The first of 350,000 24-70 vs 24-105 threads:)

[TitusvilleSurfer]

Here we go again.
This thread is over 2 years old. This is the original comparison. So in actuality, here we go for the 1st time...again.